Energy rationing – we saw it coming, didn’t we?
Amid gloomy skies and falling temperatures, a new report advises the government that British householders are going to have to ration their energy.
A report by the National Energy System Operator (NESO) says that “flexibility” is vital if the UK is to make the transition to “clean energy” by 2030:
“Flexibility is vital in a system with more variable renewables. There are large opportunities to increase flexibility in both demand and supply, across residential and commercial applications, and in industry.”
“Flexibility”, “demand” and “residential” – as so often these days, the report makes use of Orwellian euphemisms to disguise the fact that they expect the public to go without, in a world of plenty, in twenty-twenty-bloomin’-four.
The timing of the report is perfect for the new government. Just as it looked as if Labour’s election promise to complete the switch to a renewables-based energy system by 2030 was impossible, “independent experts” announce that it’s do-able.
Provided we, the people, only use power when we’re allowed, that is.
Imagine. Under such an arrangement, you can’t charge your electric car – yes, the one you had to buy because new petrol and diesel vehicles are banned – and so can’t pick up the kids or attend that funeral. A video call for your business is out of the question and it’s another cold meal on a dark winter night. Evenings in the pub and community activities become a distant memory.
This is the stuff of nightmares. It removes agency from individuals to live their lives as they choose and stops communities from flourishing. Please join us as a member to help us fight back.
It catapults a modern society into a situation where the basic infrastructure on which its way of life depends has vanished – or is only available when the high-ups say so.
So who is NESO, the organisation recommending this?
NESO is the UK’s new energy system operator. It began work last month to “help accelerate Great Britain’s energy transition” according to its website. It takes over from the National Grid, forming the first single organisation to create and run the country’s energy system. Technically it’s a company but its only shareholder is the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero.
Therein lies a big red flag – the report, presented as “independent”, comes from a company set up by government. Unsurprisingly, this new arms-length government body is giving the government exactly the advice it wants to hear.
The news confirms what many already suspected: that smart meters are a means of introducing rationing by stealth.
Last year, as part of a government push to get smart meters installed in every home, the National Grid ran an experiment to encourage households to cut their electricity consumption.
Under the scheme, Octopus Energy – who, as it happens, are “partners” of globalist outfit the World Economic Forum (WEF) and whose chairman provided an article to the WEF website entitled “How to get your company strategy ready for the Great Reset”(!) – offered its 1.4 million smart meter customers free energy if they reduced their usage at certain times.
There’s more of this to come. NESO has said it will pay business and personal customers to ration their usage all year-round under its Demand Flexibility Service.
It’s been carrot so far. But the stick is looming quickly into view. NESO’s report suggests that energy rationing in future should partly be achieved via “smart” appliances which could automatically switch off power at times of high demand.
Oh. Dear. Get your generators and donkeys ready!
Research from the University of Leeds gives an insight into the kind of thinking behind planned rationing. Academics from a 2023 report funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council argue that mandatory WWII-style rationing is a “fair” way to flight climate change.
According to the researchers, “records from World War II show that compulsory food rationing was more acceptable to the UK public than voluntary changes to diet when resources became scarce”.
Governments, they went on, could “regulate the biggest polluters, such as oil, gas and petrol, long-haul flights and intensive farming, creating scarcity in products that harm the planet. Rationing could then be introduced gradually, to manage the resulting scarcity with the aim of meeting everyone’s basic needs”.
Create scarcity, then introduce mandatory rationing. OK!
Of course, there are practical realities underpinning the predicted shortage of electricity. They stem from the attempt to rapidly replace our existing systems with one that depends on electricity generated by unreliable wind and solar power – in other words, Net Zero. The rhetoric around rationing suggests the problem will be a passing one, and that somehow these new technologies will come good and we can all get back to normal.
Should we believe that?
The government’s Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts that environmental levies on electricity bills will rise by more than a fifth by 2030 – a clear break of Labour’s election promise to reduce energy bills.
And, as this piece in the New York Times reports, the British government is putting taxpayers’ money into more research into dimming the sun – precisely the natural source of energy needed to charge all those solar panels!
It seems clear the government has neither the intention nor the ability to provide the reliable energy system on which our way of life depends. They’re making one enormous mess and expecting us to pay the consequences. And it seems there’s no one to hold them to account.
Except us – those of us who can see this charade for what it is and reject the government’s attempt to impose such a miserable existence on us. Together has consistently pointed out the folly of Net Zero and how politicians are failing the public.
Please join us as a member so we can do more – it’s a crucial time.
As politicians gather for COP29, Keir Starmer is promising to come up with “a stringent new climate goal” for the UK. But at the same time, there are clear signs the Net Zero narrative is starting to fall apart.
The leaders of the US, China, India, France and Germany are not attending this year – leaving Starmer and Miliband to rub shoulders with the Taliban instead. As Oxford University’s Prof Thomas Hale points out, even those in attendance have plenty else on their minds. “No world leader is arriving with climate change at the number one spot in their inbox.” “Climate” barely featured as an issue in the US election.
Meanwhile, in British society awareness of the destructive and unnecessary consequences of the path we’re on is dawning on more and more people.
Repealing the Climate Change Act that got us into much of this trouble in the first place seems essential. But that will be no small task.
This article (Energy rationing – we saw it coming, didn’t we?) was created and published by #together and is republished here under “Fair Use”
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Leave a Reply